The gentlebirth.org website is provided courtesy of
Ronnie Falcao, LM MS, a homebirth midwife in Mountain View, CA
An interactive resource for moms on easy steps they can take to reduce exposure to chemical toxins during pregnancy.
Other excellent resources about avoiding toxins during pregnancy
These are easy to read and understand and are beautifully presented.
Also, I found that article about the danger of frequent ultrasounds. It says the FDA has recommended not using routine ultrasound unless there is bleeding, history of birth defects, or "other possible dangers". This is supposedly "due to the fact that ultrasound waves are known to generate heat. The heat may cause microscopic bubbles in body fluids of the fetus to oscillate and collapse. Further research is being conducted on whether this condition could harm the baby. Additional concerns arose when studies showed a possible link between ultrasound and growth retardation in the fetus. This factor was noticed in animals which had been exposed to frequent ultrasound imaging similar to that which is performed on humans.
The same condition was observed in the development of unborn babies in a group which underwent five or more ultrasound imaging and Doppler studies between 18 and 38 weeks. In this group, the proportion of growth-restricted fetuses was increased by one third, as opposed to a second group which received either no imaging study or a single one at 18 weeks gestation, in which no significant changes were noted."
References: "Routine Ultrasound in Pregnancy" HealthFacts, Sept. 1993, p. 2 Science News, April 4, 1992, p. 218-219 British Medical Journal, July 3, 1993, p. 13 "Effects of Frequent Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Lancet Medical Journal, Vol. 342, Oct. 9, 1993, p. 887-891
The message started by asking "Remember that ultrasound discussion?" and then quoted someone else's message. This message referred to four references. It stated in part that the research showed a link between sonography and IUGR. However, on close reading I do not believe that is what the article states. The main article is from Newnham, Evans, Michael, et al.; "Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial"; Lancet 342:887-891, Oct. 9, 1993. The research was from Australia, that and the fact it was in Lancet speaks well of the results. Australia has always been a leader in Diagnostic Medical Sonography. The research compared an "intensive" group (1415) who received 5 or more sonographic examinations during a pregnancy to a "regular" group (1419) who received only one routine exam. The comparison was to determine if intensive sonographic observation "...would improve pregnancy outcome expressed as days of neonatal stay and the rate of pre-term birth."
However, the message's knee-jerk conclusion of the out of context quotations were off base. The real results were:
I do not believe this study shows any detrimental results from the use
of sonography. Any conclusion to the contrary must take parts of the study
out of context, is misleading, and unnecessarily anxiety producing. The
research was good, the interpretation given in the message was not.
|About the Midwife Archives / Midwife Archives Disclaimer|